< draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-12.txt		draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-13.txt >
	TCP Maintenance Working Group Y. Cheng		TCP Maintenance Working Group Y. Cheng
	Internet-Draft N. Cardwell		Internet-Draft N. Cardwell
	Intended status: Standards Track N. Dukkipati		Intended status: Standards Track N. Dukkipati
	Expires: May 6, 2021 P. Jha		Expires: May 6, 2021 P. Jha
	Google, Inc		Google, Inc
	November 2, 2020		November 2, 2020
	The RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP		The RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP
	draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-12		draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-13
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document presents the RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP.		This document presents the RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP.
	RACK-TLP uses per-segment transmit timestamps and selective		RACK-TLP uses per-segment transmit timestamps and selective
	acknowledgements (SACK) and has two parts: RACK ("Recent		acknowledgements (SACK) and has two parts: RACK ("Recent
	ACKnowledgment") starts fast recovery quickly using time-based		ACKnowledgment") starts fast recovery quickly using time-based
	inferences derived from ACK feedback. TLP ("Tail Loss Probe")		inferences derived from ACK feedback. TLP ("Tail Loss Probe")
	leverages RACK and sends a probe packet to trigger ACK feedback to		leverages RACK and sends a probe packet to trigger ACK feedback to
	avoid retransmission timeout (RTO) events. Compared to the widely		avoid retransmission timeout (RTO) events. Compared to the widely
	skipping to change at page 3, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 11 ¶
	9.2. Relationships with other loss recovery algorithms . . . . 26		9.2. Relationships with other loss recovery algorithms . . . . 26
	9.3. Interaction with congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . 26		9.3. Interaction with congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	9.4. TLP recovery detection with delayed ACKs . . . . . . . . 27		9.4. TLP recovery detection with delayed ACKs . . . . . . . . 27
	9.5. RACK for other transport protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 28		9.5. RACK for other transport protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	1. Terminology		1. Terminology
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here. In this document, these words will appear		capitals, as shown here. In this document, these words will appear
	with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of		with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of
	these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119]		these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119]
	skipping to change at page 29, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 19 ¶
	[RFC2018] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment		[RFC2018] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment
	Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.		Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An		[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An
	Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option		Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option
	for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.		for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
			[RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H., and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
			TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", January 2001.
	[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion		[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
	Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.		Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
	[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,		[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
	"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June		"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June
	2011.		2011.
	[RFC6675] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,		[RFC6675] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,
	and Y. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm		and Y. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm
	Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP",		Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP",
End of changes. 3 change blocks.
	2 lines changed or deleted		5 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/